• Blog Stats

    • 85,300 hits
  • Archives

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 164 other followers

  • Copyright notice

    This blog entry and all other text on this blog is copyrighted, you are free to read it, discuss it with friends, co-workers and anyone else who will pay attention.

    If you want to cite this blog article or quote from it in a not for profit website or blog then please feel free to do so as long as you provide a link back to this blog article.

    If as a school teacher or university teacher you wish to use content from my blog for the education of students then you may do so as long as the teaching materials produced from my blogged writings are not distributed for profit to others. Also at University level I ask that you provide a link to my blog to the students.

    If you want to quote from this blog in an academic paper published in an academic journal then please contact me before you submit your paper to enable us to discuss the matter.

    If you wish to reuse my text in a way where you will be making a profit (however small) please contact me before you do so, and we can discuss the licensing of the content.

    If you want to contact me then please do so by e-mailing me at Chalmers University of Technology, I am quite easy to find there as I am the only person with the surname “foreman” working at Chalmers. An alternative method of contacting me is to leave a comment on a blog article. If you do not know which one to comment on then just pick one at random, please include your email in the comment so I can contact you.

  • Advertisements


Dear Reader,

Events over the years have suggested to me that like the curate’s egg that Greenpeace is good in parts but in other parts not so good. I hold the view that their work to protect marine mammals (Whales and Dolphins) has been a good thing, while I think their campaigns on energy, GMOs and chemicals has not been so good,

I saw with interest a blog post in which they were commenting on something which was published in Nuclear Engineering, now I would like to make a few observations.

1. The words of Steve Kidd are understood by me to be making a reference to the problem of a government trying to favour a domestic company over a foreign company. I know many governments want to avoid imports to try to protect their own industry but this is a different problem to the question of “should a country regulate industrial activity for health, safety and environmental reasons”.

I say that a country’s government has a moral duty to regulate industrial activity to make sure that health, safety and environmental standards are kept high. Maybe Justin McKeating needs to write with more care to avoid mixing up different ideas. I suspect that if I was to mix up the Rainbow Warrier with the Exxon Valdez that Justin and the rest of the Greenpeace people would be upset, I could reply that “both are ships, so what is the difference ?” but I think that this would be a lame excuse. But do not worry I know the difference between the two ships and I promise not to mix the two up.

2. The blog ends with the words “Nuclear power is an old technology – its fundamental principles have hardly evolved since the 1950s. It looks like much the same could be said for some of its supporter’s views about nuclear power’s potential “customers”.

I would like to point out that just because something’s fundamental principles have not changed in fifty years is not a reason to view it as bad. I think that this text is the product of some very odd thinking, I suspect it may be that the Greenpeace’s blogger has made up its mind as to what the answer will be and is now whatever he/she can to get the answer wanted.

The Greenpeace blogger is trying to make the nuclear sector look bad, as freedom of expression exists the person is free to communicate their antinuclear thoughts. But I do take objection at the use of such weak logic to support the persons point of view. I think that the use of poor arguments and bad evidence by the “greens” will harm nature and the environment in the long run.

I would like to point out something, Greenpeace praises wind power but windmills (they work using the same principles as a modern wind turbine) have been around for at least 2000 years. Also many Greenpeace activities involve their fleet of ships, a man named Archimedes worked out many of the principles of  buoyancy, Archimedes did his work about 2000 years ago. So if a device is bad becuase it is based on theroy which has changed little in 50 years, then a device based on a theroy which has changed little in 2000 years is worse.

I think that the fact that a thing is based on a well understood set of principles is a good thing, it will reduce the number of nasty surpises which are possible.

If any Greenpeace supporters or staff read thing and do not like something I have read, feel free to write into me via a comment and we can discuss it like adults.


Go on, Have your say !

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: